A code of conduct for bloggers

A UK press organization believes that online publications and bloggers should …

The head of the UK's Press Complaints Commission has suggested that bloggers and other Internet content creators should agree to a voluntary code of conduct that governs what they publish online.

Tim Toulmin runs the PCC, a group that has developed a code of journalistic ethics that most newspapers and magazines in the UK voluntarily subscribe to. The code covers such topics as making payments to criminals for stories, doing financial journalism, respecting people's privacy, reporting that involves children, and giving the opportunity for all sides in a debate to respond.

The same is true in the UK, where few Internet sources have agreed to the PCC code, except for some online versions of print publications (Ars Technica has not signed a formal code of conduct, but our principles are in line with those enshrined in the PCC code). Toulmin wishes that more would do so, saying that a voluntary code could help rein in the abuses. "If you want to see how the newspaper industry would look like if it was unchecked," he told a recent conference, "then look at the Internet."

Alastair Campbell, the chair of the session, said the blogs were "perceived as a positive development" but that "some of the most offensive stuff" is found on them.

What would this self-regulation look like in practice, and could it curtail extremism? The PCC allows readers to complain about material they have read in newspapers and magazines, and the group promises to investigate each complaint free of charge and have a response within 25 days. To see how this works, consider the recent case of Mrs S. M. Ward in Buckinghampshire, who complained about the magazine Our Dogs.

Mrs. Ward, a Championship Show Judge, had written a letter to the magazine complaining about a previous article. When her letter was published, she felt that it had been edited in a misleading manner and contacted the PCC. The PCC looked into the matter and got the magazine to reprint the whole letter and also to print the following statement: "Mrs. Sue Ward?s critique of Irish Setter bitches at this year?s Windsor Championship show which appeared in our September 8 issue was edited in such a way that it was unfortunately not apparent that the 'in season' bitch to which she refers in the preamble was not her CC winner and therefore was not present in the BOB challenge." So that's cleared up.

Would a group like the PCC be beneficial for Internet publishers? Certainly, as it stands now, online publications are generally not accountable to anyone for the material they publish unless it is clearly libelous or defamatory. Signing up to a code that emphasizes fairness, respect for privacy, and certain standards of journalistic ethics wouldn't be a bad thing, but it's unlikely to solve the problems of racism and extremism (the proposal was made at a conference on race).

Unless governments were to mandate compliance with such a code, few partisan political sites or those that promote nationalist or racist agendas would be interested in signing up unless it had real teeth—and then they would use it like a stick to browbeat their opponents in the mainstream media and on the other side of the aisle. Although it might help clear up disputes with Our Dogs, can self-regulation deal with KeepOutAllForeigners.com? And if not, would readers rather live with extremism or government regulation?